On the early morning of April 30, 2026, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) of the Federal Reserve decided, by a vote of 8 to 4, to keep the target range for the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.50% to 3.75%—its third consecutive meeting with no change. However, beneath this decision that appears to meet market expectations, there lies the most intense policy rift since October 1992. The composition of the four dissenting votes was highly dramatic: Stephen Miller, a board member nominated by Trump, argued for a 25-basis-point rate cut. Cleveland Fed Chair Beth Hammack, Minneapolis Fed Chair Neel Kashkari, and Dallas Fed Chair Lorie Logan each supported holding rates steady, but they firmly opposed keeping in the statement language that suggested a more accommodative direction along the lines of “further adjustments.” This is a historically rare pattern of division—among the four dissenters, one called for more easing while the other three favored a more hawkish stance. The Fed’s internal judgments about the inflation path, how energy shocks transmit, and the economic outlook have developed fundamental fractures, and those fractures are occurring precisely during the critical window as Chair Powell’s term is nearing its end and Waller is about to take over.

How Powell’s “final act” before stepping down will set the tone for the handover period
At the press conference after the April policy meeting, Powell, as Federal Reserve Chair, completed his final public appearance. He defined the current monetary policy stance as being “in a very good position,” stressing that, amid the dual shocks of oil prices and tariffs, rate cuts still need to wait. Powell also announced that in May